Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure	 
Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That
All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System (04-SEP-07,
GAO-07-1096).							 
                                                                 
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA),	 
requiring states and localities to bring together employment and 
training programs into a single workforce system, the one-stop	 
system. States have flexibility in how they provide these	 
services--colocated within the one-stop--through electronic	 
linkage or referral. WIA did not provide funds to pay for the	 
infrastructure costs, but programs must share the costs of	 
operating one-stop centers. As Congress considers reauthorization
of WIA, GAO assessed (1) the current composition of states'	 
one-stop systems and how this has changed, (2) what funds are	 
primarily used to support states' one-stop system infrastructure 
and how this has changed, and (3) the extent to which states are 
monitoring customer satisfaction. Our work was primarily based on
a 50-state survey of state workforce officials, updating work we 
previously did in 2000 and 2001.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1096					        
    ACCNO:   A75670						        
  TITLE:     Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure 
Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That
All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System		 
     DATE:   09/04/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Eligibility determinations 			 
	     Employee training					 
	     Employment 					 
	     Employment agencies				 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Federal fund accounts				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Systems integration				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     DOL Employment Service Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1096

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]The Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite

          * [4]The Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers Has Declined 7
          * [5]The Number of Satellite or Affiliated Sites Has Decreased si
          * [6]More States Reported That Mandatory Program Services Were Av
          * [7]The Majority of Physical Locations in the One-Stop Delivery

     * [8]States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as th
     * [9]Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and
     * [10]Conclusions
     * [11]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [12]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [13]GAO Contact
     * [14]Staff Acknowledgments
     * [15]GAO's Mission
     * [16]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [17]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [18]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [19]Congressional Relations
     * [20]Public Affairs
     * [21]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

          * [22]Order by Mail or Phone

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

September 2007

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

GAO-07-1096

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 5
The Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite Sites Have
Decreased since 2001; Most Mandatory Programs Were Available at One-Stop
Centers in 2007 8
States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as the Two Largest
Funding Sources Used for Infrastructure Costs 17
Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and Some States
Have Established Customer Satisfaction Measures beyond What Is Reported to
Labor 22
Conclusions 24
Recommendations for Executive Action 25
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28
Appendix II Survey of States on WIA One-Stop Centers 30
Appendix III Numbers of Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIA) and
Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, and Related Information by State, as of
April 1, 2007 44
Appendix IV Changes in Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and
Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 2003, and 2007 46
Appendix V Programs Typically Available at Comprehensive One-Stop Centers
by State 48
Appendix VI Distribution of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in
States, as of April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds Used for
Infrastructure 50
Appendix VII Number and Percentage of Physical Locations at Community
Colleges by State, 2007 51
Appendix VIII States' Reporting on Comprehensive One-Stop Centers
Collecting Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year
2005 52
Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Labor 54
Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56
Related GAO Products 57

Tables

Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs, Related Federal Agencies, and Fiscal
Year 2006 Appropriation 7
Table 2: Number of States Reporting Services for Mandatory Programs
Available On-site, through Electronic Linkage, or by Referral in the
Majority of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, 2001 and 2007 13
Table 3: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs 21
Table 4: States with Additional Customer Satisfaction Measures for Job
Seekers and Participating Employers, Program Year 2005 22

Figures

Figure 1: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs 4
Figure 2: Changes in the Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for Each
State, Program Year 2001 and April 1, 2007 10
Figure 3: Status of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in the United
States, April 1, 2007 15
Figure 4: States Reported That the Majority of Physical Locations in
One-Stop Delivery Systems Were Leased 16
Figure 5: Top Funding Sources Used to Support Infrastructure Costs 18
Figure 6: Primary Funding Source Used by States to Support the
Infrastructure of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers 19
Figure 7: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs 20
Figure 8: Number of States and Percentage of One-Stop Centers That Collect
Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year 2005 24
Figure 9: Programs Available On-site in a Typical Comprehensive One-Stop
Center by State 48

Abbreviations

ES Employment Service
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
JTPA Job Training Partnership Act
LWIA local workforce investment area
TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
WIA Workforce Investment Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

September 4, 2007

The Honorable George Miller
Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring
states and localities to bring together employment and training programs
into a single comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system.
Sixteen federally funded workforce development programs are required to
provide their services through the one-stop system, but states have
considerable flexibility in how they deliver services. Programs, for
example, may be colocated within the one-stop center, electronically
linked, or linked through referrals. In fiscal year 2006, Congress
appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16 mandatory programs, including
about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation did not provide separate funds
to pay for the infrastructure costs, leaving it up to the mandatory
partners to make their own cost-sharing arrangements. In 2000, we
conducted a 50-state survey that examined the different arrangements
one-stop centers were using to provide both mandated and optional programs
and the funding sources used by one-stop centers to pay their
infrastructure costs. We last updated this work in 2001. However, little
is known about the current structure of one-stop centers--the numbers of
centers or the services provided at them--or the infrastructure costs for
the one-stop centers currently operating across the 50 states and how
these have changed over time. In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA), requiring states and localities to bring together
employment and training programs into a single comprehensive workforce
system, called the one-stop system. Sixteen federally funded workforce
development programs are required to provide their services through the
one-stop system, but states have considerable flexibility in how they
deliver services. Programs, for example, may be colocated within the
one-stop center, electronically linked, or linked through referrals. In
fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16
mandatory programs, including about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation
did not provide separate funds to pay for the infrastructure costs,
leaving it up to the mandatory partners to make their own cost-sharing
arrangements. In 2000, we conducted a 50-state survey that examined the
different arrangements one-stop centers were using to provide both
mandated and optional programs and the funding sources used by one-stop
centers to pay their infrastructure costs. We last updated this work in
2001. However, little is known about the current structure of one-stop
centers--the numbers of centers or the services provided at them--or the
infrastructure costs for the one-stop centers currently operating across
the 50 states and how these have changed over time.

As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to gather
information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved since WIA
was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current composition of
states' one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what
funds are primarily used to support states' one-stop system infrastructure
and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are
monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop
centers. As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to
gather information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved
since WIA was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current
composition of states' one-stop systems and how this has changed over
time, (2) what funds are primarily used to support states' one-stop system
infrastructure and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to
which states are monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at
one-stop centers.

To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems
established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job
seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce officials
To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems
established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job
seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce officials
in 50 states. The survey included questions on states' one-stop delivery
systems related to the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and
satellite or affiliated sites, program services, and sources of funds to
pay infrastructure costs for comprehensive one-stop centers. We also
obtained cost data for program year 2005. The questionnaire was e-mailed
to state officials in April, 2007, and we received surveys from all 50
states, although some states did not answer every question. We did not
survey the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories.
Our survey asked states to provide information about their one-stop
systems as of April 1, 2007. In order to analyze trends in the one-stop
delivery system, we compared the 2007 survey data with data from 2000 and
2001.^1 To assess the reliability of certain data obtained from the
survey, we independently researched the information from other publicly
available sources. In addition to our survey, we conducted a literature
review to identify relevant findings from other studies--including those
sponsored by the Department of Labor (Labor)--that examined one-stop
delivery systems. (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope
and methodology. App. II contains a copy of the questionnaire.) We
conducted our work between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in
the 50 states declined by 7 percent. Over the past 4 years, 19 states
reported a decrease in one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease
in funds as one of the primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an
increase, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services
and an increase in the number of programs provided on-site. From 2001 to
2007, the number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by about 13
percent. However, over the most recent 4 years, the number of satellite or
affiliated sites has increased slightly. In our 2007 survey, states
reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were
available at the majority of one-stop centers. States reported that three
key mandatory programs--WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the
Employment Service (ES)--continued to be available on-site at the majority
of the one-stop centers. Also, more states reported that some programs
were available at one-stop centers electronically or through referral than
in 2001. While states reported providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment
Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services
through stand-alone Employment Service facilities--offices that focus
primarily on job assistance funded by the Employment Service. Nine states
reported having one or more stand-alone Employment Service offices that
were not affiliated with the one-stop system, a condition that is
prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations. This
represents a modest decrease from figures Labor reported in 2006 when 13
states operated parallel systems disconnected from the local one-stop
centers to a substantial degree. Since the establishment of the one-stop
system, some have expressed concern that state-owned buildings may be
reducing states' flexibility to optimize their physical space. We found,
however, that most states reported that they owned relatively few
buildings, leasing or renting about two-thirds of the physical locations
for their one-stop systems. Approximately 6 percent of all buildings in
the one-stop delivery system were located at community colleges; 31 states
contained such buildings.

^1 Findings from these surveys were reported in the following GAO reports:
GAO,Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly
Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on
Effective Approaches, [23]GAO-02-696 (Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002), and
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services, [24]GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000).

WIA and the Employment Service were the largest funding sources states
used to support the infrastructure--the nonpersonnel costs--of their
comprehensive one-stop centers. For program year 2005, 42 states
identified WIA and Employment Service as the primary funding sources--of
these, 23 states identified WIA as the primary funding source and 19
states reported it was the Employment Service. Fewer states were able to
estimate the percentage of their WIA and Employment Service allotments
that were used to support one-stop infrastructure. In general, states
reported that a greater percentage of Employment Service funds than WIA
funds were used for infrastructure costs. (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs

States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the
infrastructure costs than in the past. For example, the number of states
that reported using Vocational Rehabilitation funds declined from 37
states to 24 states. However, some states have increased their reliance on
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds for infrastructure.
For program year 2005, 16 states reported that TANF was one of the three
largest sources for supporting one-stop infrastructure costs, including 6
of the 9 states with single statewide local workforce investment areas. By
contrast, 12 states reported that TANF was one of the three largest
funding sources in fiscal year 2000.

Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction data
to Labor for program year 2005, as required under WIA. Since Labor adopted
the common measures in 2005, it has granted waivers to states exempting
them from reporting participant and employer customer satisfaction. Labor
officials reported that 20 states have obtained such waivers and will be
exempt from reporting customer satisfaction data. Some states reported
collecting additional information on customer satisfaction beyond what is
required by Labor. Twelve states reported that they have established such
additional measures, including information on waiting time for assistance,
helpfulness of the services received, and extent to which services met
customer expectations. Finally, states reported that some comprehensive
one-stop centers also collect information on customer satisfaction, but
the extent to which this is done varies widely.

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure
compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations by
requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in some
way, either electronically or through direct referral, with the one-stop
system. Such actions may include additional technical assistance and
working with states to establish progress benchmarks with the
understanding that failure to meet the benchmarks may result in further
action up to and including a loss of grant funding.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Department
of Labor. Labor commented that the report contained significant
information and that it would be useful as Congress considers
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. However, the agency
disagreed with our findings and recommendation regarding unaffiliated
stand-alone Employment Service offices. Labor believes that all states are
in compliance with the requirement that all Employment Service offices be
affiliated with the one-stop system. Labor suggests that because GAO
relied on a survey of states to collect the information, our data are most
likely the result of respondents misunderstanding the survey questions. We
developed and pretested the survey instrument with state WIA
administrators from 5 states to ensure that it was easily understandable,
unambiguous, and unbiased. Furthermore, officials' responses to other
questions confirmed their understanding, and as part of our quality
control, we followed up with state officials when their responses were
ambiguous. We believe that respondents understood our questions and that
our survey results are accurate. We, therefore, stand by our findings and
recommendation. The agency's written comments are reprinted in appendix X.

Background

The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce
investment system designed to change the way employment and training
services are delivered. When WIA was enacted, in 1998, it replaced the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs--Adult, Dislocated
Worker, and Youth--that allow for a broader range of services to the
general public, no longer using income to determine eligibility for all
program services. In addition to establishing these three new programs,
WIA requires that services for these programs, along with those of a
number of other employment and training programs, including the
Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, be provided through a single
service delivery system--the one-stop system.^2 States were required to
implement these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs,
receiving an estimated $15 billion from four separate federal agencies,
must provide services through the system. (See table 1.)

^2 As part of the one-stop service delivery system, the Employment Service
focuses on providing a variety of employment-related labor exchange
services including job search assistance, job referral, and placement
assistance for job seekers, reemployment services to unemployment
insurance claimants, and recruitment services to employers with job
openings.

Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs, Related Federal Agencies, and Fiscal
Year 2006 Appropriation

(Dollars in millions)                                                   
                                                          Fiscal year 2006 
Federal agency         Mandatory programs                 appropriation 
Department of Labor    WIA Adult                                      $864
                          WIA Dislocated Worker     1,472 
                          WIA Youth                   941 
                          Employment Service              
                          (Wagner-Peyser)             850 
                          Trade adjustment                
                          assistance programs         966 
                          Veterans' employment and        
                          training programs           224 
                          Unemployment Insurance    2,508 
                          Job Corps                 1,564 
                          Senior Community Service        
                          Employment Program          432 
                          Employment and training         
                          for migrant and seasonal        
                          farm workers                 80 
                          Employment and training         
                          for Native Americans         54 
Department of          Vocational Rehabilitation                        
Education              Program                                       2,720
                          Adult Education and             
                          Literacy                    580 
                          Vocational Education            
                          (Perkins Act)             1,296 
Department of Health   Community Services Block Grant                   
and Human Services                                                     630
Department of Housing  HUD-administered employment and                  
and Urban Development  training                                         
(HUD)                                                                 85^a
Total                                                              $15,266

Source: Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and
Housing and Urban Development.

Note: Although WIA required 17 mandatory programs to participate in the
one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work program has been discontinued,
reducing the total to include 16 mandatory programs.

aEstimated appropriation

Each state must have one or more designated local workforce investment
areas, and as of April 2007, the 50 states reported having 563 local
workforce investment areas. Nine states reported having the entire state
as its workforce investment area, and California reported having the most
local workforce investment areas (50). (See app. III for additional data
about the numbers of local workforce investment areas and comprehensive
one-stop centers, and related information.) Each local area must have at
least one comprehensive one-stop center where core services for all
mandatory programs are accessible.^3 WIA allows flexibility in the way
these mandatory program partners provide services through the one-stop
system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, or referrals. While WIA
requires these mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide
additional funds to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop
partnerships. As a result, mandatory partners are expected to share the
costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to
mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other
optional partners, such as TANF or the Food Stamp Employment and Training
program, in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and local
workforce development needs.^4 Services may also be offered at satellite
or affiliated sites--designated locations that provide access to at least
one employment and training program. About $3.3 billion was appropriated
in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker,
and Youth.

The Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite Sites Have Decreased
since 2001; Most Mandatory Programs Were Available at One-Stop Centers in 2007

From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in
the 50 states declined by 7 percent, and during the same period, the total
number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by 13 percent. Since
2003, 19 states reported a decline in the number of comprehensive one-stop
centers and frequently identified a decrease in funds as one of the
primary reasons. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16
mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the majority of
comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory
programs--WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment
Service--continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop
centers. More states also reported that some programs were available at
one-stop centers electronically or through referral than in 2001. While
states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment
Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services
through stand-alone Employment Service facilities--offices that focus
primarily on assistance funded by the Employment Service. Eighteen states
reported operating one or more stand-alone Employment Service offices; 9
of these states reported having at least one unaffiliated stand-alone
office outside the one-stop delivery system. States reported that the
majority of the physical locations--the buildings that contain the
one-stop delivery system--were leased or rented in 2007. Only 10 percent
were owned by the state.

^3 For the purposes of this report, we defined a comprehensive one-stop
center as a designated location where multiple employment and training
programs provide access to services for job seekers and employers.

^4 TANF, a block grant to states, provides temporary assistance to needy
families. In general, able-bodied TANF recipients, who receive cash
assistance, must participate in work or work-related activities, and there
is a 5-year lifetime limit on federal assistance. Beyond work,
work-related activities include education and training, job search, and
participation in community service.

The Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers Has Declined 7 Percent since
Program Year 2001

The total number of comprehensive one-stop centers has declined since we
last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, the number of one-stop
centers across the 50 states has declined from 1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in
2007. (See fig. 2.) Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease
in one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in funds as one of
the primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an increase during
this period, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for
services and an increase in the number of on-site partners.

Figure 2: Changes in the Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for Each
State, Program Year 2001 and April 1, 2007

Changes in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the last 4
years were generally relatively small. Thirty-five states reported little
(less than 10 percent) or no change in the total number of comprehensive
one-stop centers. However, some states reported large changes, including 5
states that reported more than a 25 percent reduction in the number of
one-stop centers. Connecticut, for example, reported more than a 35
percent decrease in one-stop centers, from 11 to 7 centers, a change that
state officials attributed to a reduction in funding that caused one-stop
centers to be closed or redesignated as satellite sites. Conversely, 4
states reported increases of 25 percent or more in the number of one-stop
centers. For example, Montana reported a seven-fold increase, from 2 to 14
one-stop centers, as part of a statewide restructuring of its one-stop
delivery system that involved converting former satellite and affiliated
sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. (See app. IV for detailed
information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and
satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.)

The Number of Satellite or Affiliated Sites Has Decreased since 2001 but Has
Risen Slightly since 2003

From 2001 to 2007, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites
across the 50 states declined by 13 percent, from 2,032 to 1,764. However,
the number of satellite sites has increased slightly in the last 4 years.
Between 2003 and 2007, 17 states reported increasing the number of
satellite sites. Illinois, for example, reported a 45 percent increase in
satellite sites (from 53 to 77) to meet the demand in underserved areas
and to respond to specific large dislocation events. In contrast, 17
states reported a decline in the number of satellite sites. For example,
in Florida, the number decreased by 56 percent--from 39 to 17--because of
ongoing funding cuts. In other states, however, the decrease in the number
of satellite sites was often the result of a change in the states'
official designation of satellite and affiliated sites. Fifteen states
reported no change in the number of satellite sites since 2003. (See app.
IV for detailed information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop
centers and satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.)

The use of satellite sites in rural areas has changed in recent years,
according to a 2005 study sponsored by Labor.^5 In the five localities
that the researchers reviewed, the rural local workforce investment areas
were focusing more on developing comprehensive one-stop centers than on
creating multiple, dispersed satellite or affiliated sites. Researchers
attributed the move away from satellite sites to comprehensive centers to
a number of reasons, including the increase in the availability of
electronic access to core services, the greater ease of supervising
colocated staff, the increased visibility of comprehensive centers, and
the fact that affiliated sites often had limited hours that made them less
attractive.

More States Reported That Mandatory Program Services Were Available at One-Stop
Centers

In 2007, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required
under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop
centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs--WIA Adult, WIA
Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service--continued to be available
on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also reported
that some programs' services were available at one-stop centers
electronically or through referral. These programs included Job Corps,
Senior Community Service Employment, and Adult Education and Literacy.
(See table 2.) In addition, states reported that services for an optional
program, TANF, were available in one-stop centers in more states in 2007
than in 2001. Sixteen states reported that TANF was available in the
majority of one-stop centers in 2001, whereas 30 states reported that TANF
was available at the typical comprehensive one-stop center in 2007.^6 (See
app. V for additional information about program services provided at a
typical one-stop center across all 50 states.)

^5 Kate Dunham, Annelies Goger, Jennifer Henderson-Frakes, and Nichole
Tucker, Workforce Development in Rural Areas: Changes in Access, Service
Delivery and Partnerships, Social Policy Research Associates, Oakland,
California, June 30, 2005.

^6 A different survey question was used in 2001 than in 2007. The 2001
survey asked states to report the number of comprehensive one-stop centers
that offered TANF on-site at least part-time, and we used this information
to calculate how many had program services available in the majority of
one-stop centers. The 2007 survey asked states to identify which programs
were available at a typical one-stop center in the state.

Table 2: Number of States Reporting Services for Mandatory Programs
Available On-site, through Electronic Linkage, or by Referral in the
Majority of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, 2001 and 2007

                                Number of states, 2001 Number of states, 2007
                                               Through                Through 
                                            electronic             electronic 
                                            linkage or             linkage or 
Programs                      On-site      referral    On-site    referral 
Labor                                                                      
WIA Adult                          50             0       48^a           0 
WIA Dislocated Worker            49^b             0       47^a           1 
WIA Youth                        46^a             2       42^c           4 
Employment Service               49^b             0       48^a           0 
(Wagner-Peyser)                                                            
Veterans E&T                      N/A           N/A       46^c           1 
DVOPS                            42^b             5        N/A         N/A 
LVER                             43^b             3        N/A         N/A 
Trade Adjustment Assistance      43^b             5       43^a           5 
Unemployment Insurance           34^a            13       31^c          15 
Senior Community Service         30^d             5       19^d          22 
Employment Program                                                         
Job Corps                        21^e            12       11^c          33 
Employment and Training for                                                
Migrant and Seasonal Farm                                                  
Workers                          24^c             9       22^d          19 
Education                                                                  
Vocational Rehabilitation          39             4       29^c          16 
Adult Education and Literacy     26^d            12       22^c          22 

N/A = Not applicable

Sources: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007.

Notes: (1) States were asked to report on availability of Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) programs in 2001 rather than Veterans'
E&T. (2) GAO received inadequate survey response rates in 2001 for four
programs (Community Service Block Grants, Housing and Urban Development
Employment and Training, Employment and Training for Native Americans, and
Vocational Education) to allow comparison. (3) Two states--California and
New Mexico--did not respond to the question on availability of any program
services at one-stop centers in 2007.

aTwo states did not respond to the question.

bOne state did not respond to the question.

cThree states did not respond to the question.

dFour states did not respond to the question.

eFive states did not respond to the question.

While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment
Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services
through stand-alone Employment Service facilities--offices that focus
primarily on job search and placement assistance. Overall, 18 states
reported in our 2007 survey that they had at least one stand-alone
Employment Service office. Nine states reported that at least one of these
stand-alone offices were unaffiliated and not part of the one-stop
delivery system. Six of these states reported that they operated all of
their stand-alone Employment Service offices as unaffiliated sites
completely outside the one-stop system. This represents a modest decrease
from the figures Labor reported in 2006, when 19 states overall were
identified as having at least one stand-alone Employment Service office,
13 of which were operating parallel systems disconnected from the local
one-stop centers to a substantial degree. (See fig. 3.) (See app. VI for
additional information about stand-alone employment service offices.)

The Wagner-Peyser Act requires that all labor exchange services be
provided as part of the one-stop delivery system. ^7 Labor's implementing
regulations provide that Employment Service offices may not exist outside
the one-stop delivery system, but allow stand-alone Employment Service
offices to operate as affiliated sites or as electronically or
technologically linked access points. Labor has expressed concern that
these stand-alone Employment Service offices cause confusion for
individuals and employers and promote duplication of effort. While Labor
has the option to withhold funding, it has not done so, but has taken
other steps to encourage states to provide all employment services through
the one-stop system. These actions include providing policy guidance,
monitoring the status of states' workforce integration, conducting forums,
and providing technical assistance to states in support of integration of
stand-alone offices into one-stop centers. In addition, Labor reports that
it is requiring states to include information on their efforts to improve
one-stop coordination and integration in their WIA state plan updates this
year. And Labor has proposed legislative initiatives and regulatory
changes--that currently await reauthorization--designed to better
integrate services at the one-stop. Despite the range of Labor's efforts,
states have made only modest progress in bringing these systems together.

^7 29 U.S.C.S49f(e).

Figure 3: Status of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in the United
States, April 1, 2007

The Majority of Physical Locations in the One-Stop Delivery System Were Leased
or Rented

Since the establishment of the one-stop system, some have expressed
concern that state-owned buildings may be reducing states' flexibility to
optimize their physical space. We found, however, that most states
reported that they owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting
about two-thirds of the physical locations for their one-stop systems.
Overall, states reported that the one-stop delivery system comprised
nearly 3,400 physical locations. Of the overall total, states reported
that about 65 percent of the buildings were leased or rented, and only 10
percent were state-owned. (See fig. 4.)

Figure 4: States Reported That the Majority of Physical Locations in
One-Stop Delivery Systems Were Leased

Note: Numbers may not total 100 because of rounding.

Most states (37) reported that they owned less than 20 percent of the
buildings used to operate the one-stop system,^8 and 10 of these states
reported that they did not own any of the physical locations. In contrast,
4 states reported that over half of the buildings used to operate the
one-stop delivery systems were state-owned. Two states also reported that
the majority of the buildings were neither leased nor owned but otherwise
provided, including facilities that were provided for free.

States generally reported that a small percentage of buildings in their
one-stop delivery system were located on the campuses of community
colleges. In our survey, 31 states reported having at least one facility
located on a community college campus, and these states reported a total
of 186 physical locations--approximately 6 percent--on campus. North
Carolina reported the highest percentage of facilities located on
community college campuses at 25 percent, and with 31 physical locations,
represented 17 percent of the total number. (See app. VII for more
information about the numbers of physical locations on the campuses of
community colleges.)

^8 One state did not provide data on the number of physical locations that
were state-owned.

States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as the Two Largest
Funding Sources Used for Infrastructure Costs

While most states relied heavily on one or two programs to support
one-stop infrastructure costs, some states dispersed the costs among
numerous programs. WIA and the Employment Service were the two programs
most often identified as funding sources used for infrastructure--the
nonpersonnel costs--of operating comprehensive one-stop centers. In our
2007 survey, most states reported that WIA and the Employment Service were
the largest contributors toward infrastructure costs for program year
2005. (See fig. 5.) Of the 48 states that were able to report on
infrastructure funding for comprehensive one-stop centers, 23 states
identified WIA as the top funding source and 19 states reported that
Employment Service funds were the largest funding source. Three states
reported that TANF funds were the largest funding source. (See fig. 6.)
The choices states made regarding infrastructure funding appear to be
independent of state size, population density, or the number of
comprehensive one-stop centers.

Figure 5: Top Funding Sources Used to Support Infrastructure Costs

Note: Two states did not respond to the question on the funding sources
that contributed the most to financing one-stop centers.

Figure 6: Primary Funding Source Used by States to Support the
Infrastructure of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers

While WIA and the Employment Service were the primary funding sources used
to support infrastructure costs in program year 2005, states varied in
their ability to report more detailed information on infrastructure costs
in our survey. Of the states that could report, more states reported that
a greater percentage of their Employment Service funds than WIA funds were
used to finance the infrastructure of the one-stop comprehensive centers.
(See fig. 7.) Specifically, of the 41 states that provided estimates for
the percentage of their Employment Service allotment used for
infrastructure costs, 29 reported using more than 10 percent. Conversely,
of the 29 states that provided estimates for the percentage of WIA funds,
21 states reported using 10 percent or less. (See app. VIII for
state-reported data on the percentage of WIA and Employment Service
allocations used for infrastructure costs during program year 2005.)

Figure 7: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs

Moreover, for program year 2005, states reported less reliance on other
programs for funding the one-stop infrastructure costs than in the past.
(See table 3.) For example, over a 5-year period, the number of states
that reported using Vocational Rehabilitation program funds for
infrastructure costs declined from 37 to 24. While the number of states
relying on TANF funds has declined, more states identified it as one of
the three largest funding sources for infrastructure costs for program
year 2005 than previously reported. Sixteen states reported that TANF was
one of the three largest contributors to financing one-stop centers,
including 6 of the 9 states with single statewide workforce investment
areas. In fiscal year 2000, 12 states reported that TANF was one of the
three largest funding sources.

Table 3: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs

                      Number of states Number of states                       
                         using program    using program      Number of states 
                             funds for        funds for   using program funds 
                       infrastructure,  infrastructure,   for infrastructure, 
Program            fiscal year 2000 fiscal year 2001     program year 2005 
Labor              
WIA Title I/JTPA                 50               50                    50 
Employment Service               49               50                    50 
(Wagner-Peyser)                                                            
Veterans' E&T                    43               43                    41 
Program                                                                    
NAFTA^a and Trade                39               41                    30 
Adjustment                                                                 
Assistance                                                                 
Unemployment                     39               39                    34 
Insurance                                                                  
Welfare-to-Work                  39               38                   N/A 
Grants                                                                     
One-Stop                         37              N/A                   N/A 
Implementation                                                             
Grants                                                                     
Job Corps                        20               24                    11 
Education          
Vocational                       37               37                    24 
Rehabilitation                                                             
Adult Education                  29               29                    15 
and Literacy                                                               
Vocational                       24               19                   N/A 
Education                                                                  
Other              
Temporary                        33               36                    27 
Assistance for                                                             
Needy Families                                                             
Community Colleges              N/A              N/A                    11 
State Funds                     N/A               31                    24 

N/A = Not applicable.

Sources: GAO surveys of states in 2000, 2001, and 2007.

aNorth American Free Trade Agreement.

Regarding the stand-alone offices, we asked states to provide estimates of
their state's total Employment Service allotment used to support the
infrastructure of these offices.^9 Among the 6 states that provided this
information, they reported that the amount ranged from 0 to 14 percent,
and the overall average was approximately 5 percent. However, the state
with the most stand-alone Employment Service offices, Iowa, reported that
it did not use any of its Employment Service allotment to support the
infrastructure of these offices. Instead, Iowa financed the infrastructure
costs of its 30 stand-alone offices with state general funds.

^9 For the purposes of this report, we defined infrastructure costs as the
nonpersonnel costs necessary for the general operation of a one-stop
center, including the rental costs of the facilities, costs of utilities
and maintenance, and equipment (including adaptive technology for
individuals with disabilities).

Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and Some States Have
Established Customer Satisfaction Measures beyond What Is Reported to Labor

Nearly all states submitted customer satisfaction data for both job
seekers and employers to Labor for program year 2005, as required under
WIA.^10 In addition, 12 states reported that they had established measures
for customer satisfaction beyond what is required. For example, some
states collected information on waiting time for assistance, helpfulness
of the services received, and extent to which services met customer
expectations. Of these 12 states, 10 established additional customer
satisfaction measures for both job seekers and participating employers,
and 2 states established additional customer satisfaction measures just
for job seekers. (See table 4.)

Table 4: States with Additional Customer Satisfaction Measures for Job
Seekers and Participating Employers, Program Year 2005

                    Additional customer satisfaction measures
State         For job seekers         For participating employers
Connecticut              X                       X
                                                     
Delaware                 X                       X
                                                     
Maine                    X                       X
                                                     
Minnesota                X                       X
                                                     
Missouri                 X                       X
                                                     
Nebraska                 X                       X
                                                     
Nevada                   X                       X
                                                     
New Hampshire            X                       X
                                                     
New York                 X                       X
                                                     
Oklahoma                 X                       X
                                                     
Oregon                   X                        
                                                     
Washington               X                        

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

^10 The 2 states (Mississippi and Pennsylvania) that did not submit
customer satisfaction data were granted waivers exempting them from the
requirement to report this information.

Since 2005, when Labor moved to using common measures, Labor has granted,
upon request, waivers to states exempting them from reporting on
participant and employer customer satisfaction. As of August, 2007, Labor
reported that 20 states, including the District of Columbia, have such
waivers, exempting them from reporting customer satisfaction data.^11 In
addition, all states report on employment-related outcomes for the common
performance measures--three for adults and three for youth--and are
required to negotiate with Labor separate goals and report on outcomes for
both the WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker programs.^12

According to state officials, comprehensive one-stop centers also collect
customer satisfaction data not required by the state, but the extent to
which one-stop centers are collecting information varies considerably.
Eight states reported that all of their comprehensive one-stop centers
collected additional information on customer satisfaction, and 9 more
states reported that the majority of their one-stop centers collected
additional information. Conversely, 7 states reported that none of their
one-stop centers collected any additional information from job seekers or
participating employers. (See fig. 8.) (See app. IX for states' reporting
on the extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on
customer satisfaction.)

^11 Labor reports the following states have waivers: Colorado, District of
Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

^12 The three common performance measures for adults are entered
employment, employment retention, and average earnings; the three common
performance measures for youth are placement in employment or education,
attainment of a degree or certificate, and literacy and numeracy gains.

Figure 8: Number of States and Percentage of One-Stop Centers That Collect
Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year 2005

Note: The remaining 12 states did not know whether or not the one-stop
centers were collecting additional information on customer satisfaction.

Conclusions

Our study presents a snapshot in time of the evolving structure of the
one-stop system in each of the 50 states. Because WIA provided states and
localities with flexibility in deciding how to implement the one-stop
system, the picture continues to evolve as systems are tailored to meet
ever changing local needs. The results of our survey suggest that states
and localities have developed a variety of different approaches to deliver
services. However, nine states reported operating at least one stand-alone
Employment Service office outside the one-stop delivery system, a
situation prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing
regulations. Although the services provided may be useful, because these
offices are not linked to the one-stop system in any way--either
electronically or by referral, program participants may not be receiving
the complete range of services they need to gain employment or other
job-related assistance. It may also be the case that these separate
systems result in duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources.
We support Labor's steps thus far to integrate Wagner-Peyser-funded
employment services into the one-stop system, but they have resulted in
only modest improvement. Without further integration, these separate
stand-alone offices may continue to create confusion for clients, result
in duplication of effort, and undermine the key goal of WIA--to
consolidate the nation's workforce development system.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure
compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations by
requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in some
way, either electronically or through direct referral, with the one-stop
system. Such actions may include additional technical assistance and
working with states to establish progress benchmarks with the
understanding that failure to meet the benchmarks may result in further
action up to and including a loss of grant funding.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. Labor
commented that the report provides significant information that will be
useful to Congress in reauthorizing WIA, but the department disagreed with
some of the report's findings, the recommendation, and the report's title.

Specifically, Labor commented that it does not believe that the report's
findings regarding the presence of unaffiliated stand-alone Employment
Service offices and the recommendation to step up action to bring them
into compliance are sound. Labor comments that it is not aware of any
specific instance of an unaffiliated, stand-alone Employment Service
office. Labor states that requirements to become affiliated are broad and
easy to meet and, as a result, believes that unaffiliated offices do not
exist. Labor suggests that because we rely on a survey of states to
collect the

information, the data are most likely the result of a misunderstanding on
the part of survey respondents. In conducting our work, we followed
generally accepted government auditing standards. We developed the survey
instrument based on a questionnaire used in previous studies, and, for
this study, we pretested it with state WIA administrators from five states
to ensure that it was easily understandable, unambiguous, and unbiased.
Furthermore, officials' responses to other questions confirmed their
understanding, and as part of our quality control, we followed up with
state officials when their responses were ambiguous. In one case, for
example, responses were ambiguous on the questions related to stand- alone
offices. We conducted a follow-up conversation with a state official who
confirmed that the states' stand-alone offices were not affiliated with
the one-stop system. We therefore believe that respondents understood our
questions and that our survey results are accurate. We stand by our
findings and our recommendation. Given that Labor reports requirements to
be affiliated with the one-stop system are easy to meet, we hope that
Labor will take steps to ensure that all states are meeting those
requirements. In addition, Labor notes that withholding funding for
noncompliance would be difficult and inefficient. We concur that
withholding funds would be draconian, and we would hope that, given the
ease in meeting the requirements, no state would suffer this consequence.

In addition, Labor expressed concerns that while we note a number of
actions undertaken by officials to better foster coordination, we have not
fully reported all steps Labor has taken. We have modified the text to
reflect the new information provided in Labor's written comments.

Finally, Labor stated that the report's draft title does not fully reflect
the broad range of topics discussed in this report. We have modified the
title. Labor's entire comments are in appendix X.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretary of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and others who
are interested. Copies will also be made available at no charge on GAO's
Web site at [25]http://www.gao.gov .

Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page
of this report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XI.

Sincerely yours,

Cynthia M. Fagnoni
Managing Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our study assessed (1) the current composition of states' one-stop systems
and how this has changed over time, (2) what funds are primarily used to
support states' one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed
over time, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer
satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers.

To provide information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems
established under Workforce Investment Act (WIA) deliver employment and
training services to job seekers and employers, we conducted an electronic
survey of state workforce officials in 50 states. We did not survey the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. The survey
included questions on states' one-stop delivery systems related to the

           o numbers of local workforce investment areas and participants
           served;
           o numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, satellite or
           affiliated sites, and how these changed from program year 2003 to
           April 1, 2007;
           o infrastructure cost data for program year 2005;
           o use of stand-alone Employment Service offices;
           o mandatory programs and how these services were provided;
           o extent of integration of certain functions (e.g., reception
           area, information systems, and intake forms) at comprehensive
           one-stop centers; and
           o program monitoring of customer satisfaction.

The questionnaire was forwarded to state officials in April 2007, and
responses were received through late May 2007. We received surveys from
all 50 states, although some states did not answer every question. States'
survey responses were as of April 1, 2007. Because we administered the
survey to all 50 states, our results are not subject to sampling error.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, or the
sources of information available to respondents in answering a question,
can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included
steps in the development of the survey, the collection of data, and the
editing and analysis of data to minimize such nonsampling errors. To
reduce nonsampling error, the questionnaire was reviewed by survey
specialists and pretested with officials from 5 states to develop a
questionnaire that was relevant, easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and
unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire
based on the specialists' reviews and the results of the pretests.
Completed questionnaires were keypunched, and each record was verified by
comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and any errors
were corrected. When the data were analyzed, a second independent analyst
checked all computer programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of
certain data obtained from the survey, we independently researched the
information from other publicly available sources.

In order to analyze trends in states' one-stop delivery systems, we
compared 2007 survey data with survey data from 2000 and 2001. In addition
to our surveys, we conducted a literature review to identify relevant
findings from other studies--including those sponsored by Labor--that
examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work between April
2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA One-Stop Centers

Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIA) and
Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, and Related Information by State, as of
April 1, 2007

                   Total                 Largest number                       
                  number  Number ofLWIAs             of                       
                      of  with more than  comprehensive                       
                   LWIAs             one       one-stop        Total numberof 
                      in   comprehensive     centers in comprehensiveone-stop 
State           state        one-stop           LWIA      centers in state 
Alabama             3               1             18                    20 
Alaska              1               1              7                     7 
Arizona            14               6              3                    23 
Arkansas           10               2              3                    14 
California         50              25             16                   148 
Colorado            9               6             14                    34 
Connecticut         5               2              2                     7 
Delaware            1               1              4                     4 
Florida            24              23             13                    79 
Georgia            20               9              6                    46 
Hawaii              4               0              1                     4 
Idaho               1               1             24                    24 
Illinois           26              12              4                    44 
Indiana             2               2             24                    26 
Iowa               15               1              2                    16 
Kansas              5               0              1                     5 
Kentucky           10              10              4                    31 
Louisiana          18               8              4                    32 
Maine               4               4              4                    20 
Maryland           12               7              3                    22 
Massachusetts      16              13              3                    32 
Michigan           25              22              9                    96 
Minnesota          16              11              8                    47 
Mississippi         4               4             14                    44 
Missouri           14               9              7                    34 
Montana             2               2             12                    14 
Nebraska            3               0              1                     3 
Nevada              2               1              3                     4 
New Hampshire       1               1             13                    13 
New Jersey         18               6              4                    25 
New Mexico          4               2              4                    12 
New York           33              21              7                    76 
North Carolina     24              21              9                   103 
North Dakota        1               1              8                     8 
Ohio               19               2             12                    31 
Oklahoma           12               3              3                    17 
Oregon              7               3             14                    25 
Pennsylvania       23              15              7                    71 
Rhode Island        2               0              1                     2 
South Carolina     12               4              3                    18 
South Dakota        1               1             14                    14 
Tennessee          13               2              2                    15 
Texas              28              24             30                   163 
Utah                1               1             35                    35 
Vermont             1               0              1                     1 
Virginia           16              10              5                    34 
Washington         12               8              4                    25 
West Virginia       7               6              5                    19 
Wisconsin          11               9              7                    38 
Wyoming             1               1             12                    12 
Total             563             324                                1,637 

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and
Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 2003, and 2007

                                                Number of     
                Number of                       satellite     
              comprehensive                         or        
                one-stop     Percentage         affiliated  Percentage
                 centers    change,2001           sites    change,2001
States         2001    2003     to 2007 2007     2001 2003     to 2007  2007
Alabama            30    27          20    -33%                     31    30    22   -29%
Alaska              6     7           7     17%                     16    17    17     6%
Arizona            20    23          23     15%                     36    35    36     0%
Arkansas           14    13          14      0%                     54    57    51    -6%
California        162   166         148     -9%                    129   116   118    -9%
Colorado           32    34          34      6%                     44    40    40    -9%
Connecticut         8    11           7    -13%                     11    10    15    36%
Delaware            4     4           4      0%                      0     0     0     0%
Florida           112    96          79    -29%                     56    39    17   -70%
Georgia            27    46          46     70%                      0    78   116     ^a
Hawaii             10     4           4    -60%                      3    10     9   200%
Idaho               6     6          24    300%                    105    68    50   -52%
Illinois           44    46          44      0%                     54    53    77    43%
Indiana            67    27          26    -61%                      0    75    75     ^a
Iowa               16    16          16      0%                     80    56    39   -51%
Kansas             15     5           5    -67%                     26    20    20   -23%
Kentucky           27    29          31     15%                     92   129   131    42%
Louisiana          22    34          32     45%                     46    50    47     2%
Maine              23    20          20    -13%                      0     2     1     ^a
Maryland           28    28          22    -21%                     18    13    11   -39%
Massachusetts      35    32          32     -9%                      3     5     5    67%
Michigan          102   100          96     -6%                     14    11    17    21%
Minnesota          53    50          47    -11%                     14    29     0  -100%
Mississippi        33    23          44     33%                    216    23    12   -94%
Missouri           30    34          34     13%                     35   126   135   286%
Montana             2     2          14    600%                     78    12     5   -94%
Nebraska            5     3           3    -40%                     16    15    17     6%
Nevada              2     5           4    100%                     53     9     7   -87%
New Hampshire      13    13          13      0%                     81     0     0  -100%
New Jersey         17    27          25     47%                     24    15    21   -13%
New Mexico         26     5          12    -54%                      2     9    11   450%
New York           61    76          76     25%                    300    19    18   -94%
North              87    96         103     18%                     15    15    23    53%
Carolina                                                                              
North Dakota       13     8           8    -38%                      2     9     9   350%
Ohio               98    31          31    -68%                      0    59    59     ^a
Oklahoma           34    31          17    -50%                     24    17    31    29%
Oregon             40    33          25    -38%                      4     5    26   550%
Pennsylvania       46   109          71     54%                     44     b     1   -98%
Rhode Island        2     2           2      0%                      4     4     4     0%
South              17    17          18      6%                     29    38    45    55%
Carolina                                                                              
South Dakota       19    14          14    -26%                      4     4     4     0%
Tennessee          14    15          15      7%                     42    55    55    31%
Texas             144   155         163     13%                    107   104   103    -4%
Utah               34    36          35      3%                      6   104   104 1,633%
Vermont             1     1           1      0%                     11    11    11     0%
Virginia           40    43          34    -15%                     43    36    21   -51%
Washington         24    27          25      4%                     30    42    42    40%
West Virginia      68    18          19    -72%                      9    45    38   322%
Wisconsin          11    66          38    245%                     14    12    40   186%
Wyoming            12    12          12      0%                      7     7     8    14%
Total           1,756 1,726       1,637                          2,032 1,738 1,764    

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

aPercentage change cannot be calculated.

bState did not report this information.

Appendix V: Programs Typically Available at Comprehensive One-Stop Centers
by State

In our survey, we asked states to consider the typical comprehensive
one-stop center in their state and identify federal programs that were
most often provided on-site. Figure 9 summarizes a typical one-stop center
for each state.

Figure 9: Programs Available On-site in a Typical Comprehensive One-Stop
Center by State

Appendix VI: Distribution of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in
States, as of April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds Used for
Infrastructure

                                                   Percentage                        
                                                           of                        
                                                    one-stops                        
            Stand-alone  Stand-alone                     with                 Amount 
                offices      offices               Employment    ofEmploymentService 
             affiliated unaffiliated  Total number    Service          fundsused for 
               with the     with the ofstand-alone  available infrastructure,program 
State            system       system       offices    on-site              year 2005 
Arizona              13            7            20         70               $784,000 
Arkansas              0            1             1        100                      a 
California            0           12            12          a                      a 
Connecticut           1            0             1        100                $67,218 
Delaware              0            4             4        100                     ^a 
Hawaii                2            0             2         75               $160,000 
Illinois              0           15            15        100                      a 
Iowa                 30            0            30        100                     $0 
Kansas                5            5            10        100                $50,000 
Kentucky              9            0             9        100                      a 
Montana               5            0             5        100               $700,000 
New Mexico           11            0            11          a                      a 
North                 0           18            18         94                      a 
Carolina                                                                             
Oklahoma              4            0             4        100                      a 
South                16            6            22         94                      a 
Carolina                                                                             
Tennessee             0            5             5        100                      a 
Virginia              6            0             6        100                      a 
West                  1            0             1        100                      a 
Virginia                                                                             
Total               103           73           176                                   

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

aState did not report this information.

Appendix VII: Number and Percentage of Physical Locations at Community
Colleges by State, 2007

                                                        Percentage of states' 
                  Number of physicallocations  physicallocations at community 
State                at community colleges                        colleges 
Alabama                                 10                              24 
Arkansas                                 5                               8 
California                              10                               4 
Colorado                                 5                               7 
Florida                                  4                               4 
Georgia                                 23                              14 
Illinois                                 9                               7 
Indiana                                  3                               3 
Iowa                                     2                               4 
Kansas                                   2                               8 
Kentucky                                 6                               5 
Maine                                    1                               5 
Maryland                                 4                              12 
Michigan                                 3                               3 
Minnesota                                6                              13 
Mississippi                              3                               5 
Missouri                                 4                               2 
Nebraska                                 1                               5 
New Jersey                               2                               4 
New York                                 6                               6 
North Carolina                          31                              25 
Ohio                                     1                               1 
Oklahoma                                 5                              10 
Oregon                                   9                              18 
Pennsylvania                             1                               1 
South Carolina                           3                               5 
Utah                                     4                               3 
Virginia                                 1                               2 
Washington                              10                              15 
Wisconsin                               11                              14 
Wyoming                                  1                               5 
Total                                  186                               6 

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

Appendix VIII: States' Reporting on Comprehensive One-Stop Centers
Collecting Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year
2005

                  Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information
                                   on customer satisfaction
State           100 percent of    Majority of   Some of the   None of the  
                      one-stops       one-stops     one-stops     one-stops   
Arizona                                              X                     
Arkansas                                             X                     
Colorado                                             X                     
Delaware               X                                                   
Hawaii                                               X                     
Idaho                                                              X       
Illinois                               X                                   
Indiana                                X                                   
Iowa                                                 X                     
Kentucky                                             X                     
Maine                  X                                                   
Maryland                                             X                     
Massachusetts                                        X                     
Michigan               X                                                   
Minnesota              X                                                   
Mississippi                            X                                   
Montana                                                            X       
Nebraska               X                                                   
Nevada                                                             X       
New Hampshire          X                                                   
New Mexico                                           X                     
New York                               X                                   
North Dakota                                                       X       
Ohio                                   X                                   
Oklahoma                                             X                     
Oregon                                               X                     
Pennsylvania                                         X                     
Rhode Island           X                                                   
South Carolina                                       X                     
South Dakota                                                       X       
Tennessee                                            X                     
Texas                                  X                                   
Utah                                                               X       
Vermont                                                            X       
Washington                             X                                   
West Virginia                          X                                   
Wisconsin                              X                                   
Wyoming                X                                                   
Total                  8               9            14             7       

Source: GAO survey of 50 states

Note: The remaining 12 states did not know whether or not the one-stop
centers were collecting additional information on customer satisfaction.

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Cynthia M. Fagnoni (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]

Staff Acknowledgments

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director
Dianne M. Blank, Assistant Director
Timothy Hall, Analyst-in-Charge

Thomas McCabe made significant contributions to this report in all facets
of the work. In addition, Stuart Kaufman assisted in the design and
analysis of the national survey; Jean McSween provided methodological
assistance, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, and Susannah Compton
helped develop the report's message.

Related GAO Products

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the
Workforce System. [26]GAO-07-1051T . Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve Information
on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. [27]GAO-07-594 .
Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007.

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge
Employer Involvement. [28]GAO-07-167 . Washington, D.C.: December 22,
2006.

National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness
and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process. [29]GAO-06-870
. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2006.

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received
Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. [30]GAO-06-43 .
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006.

Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor
Needs to Make Data Available. [31]GAO-06-53 . Washington, D.C.: December
9, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to Improve
Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. [32]GAO-06-82 . Washington,
D.C.: November 14, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known about Training Outcomes. [33]GAO-05-650 . Washington,
D.C.: June 29, 2005.

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services
to Claimants. [34]GAO-05-413 . Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to
Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. [35]GAO-05-539 .
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address
Employers' Needs. [36]GAO-05-259 . Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate
Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May
Not Be Sufficient. [37]GAO-05-54 . Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies
to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. [38]GAO-04-657 .
Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award
Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and
Improve Data. [39]GAO-04-496 . Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of
Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. [40]GAO-04-308 .
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and
Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally
Funded Programs. [41]GAO-04-282 . Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on
State Allocations. [42]GAO-03-1043 . Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization.
[43]GAO-03-884T . Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. [44]GAO-03-725 . Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth,
Adults, and Dislocated Workers. [45]GAO-03-636 . Washington, D.C.: April
25, 2003.

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but
Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
[46]GAO-03-353 . Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. [47]GAO-03-350 . Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. [48]GAO-03-239 . Washington,
D.C.: November 22, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. [49]GAO-02-696 . Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies,
but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. [50]GAO-02-413
. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. [51]GAO-02-274 . Washington,
D.C.: February 11, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. [52]GAO-02-275 .
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns over
New Requirements. [53]GAO-02-72 . Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also
testimony [54]GAO-02-94T .

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. [55]GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 . Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.

(130645)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? [56]GAO-07-1096 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Cynthia M. Fagnoni at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [57]GAO-07-1096 , a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives

September 2007

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take
Action to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the
System

In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring
states and localities to bring together employment and training programs
into a single workforce system, the one-stop system. States have
flexibility in how they provide these services--colocated within the
one-stop--through electronic linkage or referral. WIA did not provide
funds to pay for the infrastructure costs, but programs must share the
costs of operating one-stop centers. As Congress considers reauthorization
of WIA, GAO assessed (1) the current composition of states' one-stop
systems and how this has changed, (2) what funds are primarily used to
support states' one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed,
and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer satisfaction.
Our work was primarily based on a 50-state survey of state workforce
officials, updating work we previously did in 2000 and 2001.

[58]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Labor step up action to ensure that all stand-alone
offices be affiliated with the one-stop system. In its comments, Labor
stated that the report would be useful, but disagreed with the findings
and recommendation regarding stand-alone offices, asserting that all
Employment Service offices are in compliance. Our results are based on
verified survey data; we stand by our findings and recommendation.

Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop centers,
often citing a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. At the
same time, 10 states reported an increase, citing an increase in demand
for services and an increase in on-site programs. In our 2007 survey,
states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs were available at the
majority of one-stop centers. States reported they were providing
Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, but
some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service
offices--facilities that focus primarily on job search and placement
assistance. While states are required to maintain these offices within the
one-stop delivery system, 9 states reported operating at least one
stand-alone office unaffiliated with the one-stop system. While Labor has
taken steps to encourage states to provide all employment services through
the one-stop system, states have made only modest progress in bringing
these systems together.

WIA and Employment Service were the largest funding sources for states to
support the infrastructure--the nonpersonnel costs--of their one-stop
centers. Of the two programs, states reported that a greater percentage of
Employment Service funds than WIA funds were used for infrastructure
costs. States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the
infrastructure costs than in the past.

Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction data
to Labor for program year 2005. In addition, 12 states reported that they
have established additional customer satisfaction measures beyond those
required by Labor.

Changes in Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for States between Program Year
2001 and Program Year 2006

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [59]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[60]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [61]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [62][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [63][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [64][email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

References

Visible links
  23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-696
  24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-00-145
  25. http://www.gao.gov/
  26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1051T
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-594
  28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-167
  29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-870
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-43
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-53
  32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-82
  33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-650
  34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-413
  35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-539
  36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-259
  37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-54
  38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-657
  39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-496
  40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-308
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-282
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1043
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-884T
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-725
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-636
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-353
  47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-350
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-239
  49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-696
  50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-413
  51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-274
  52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-275
  53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-72
  54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-94T
  55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-00-145
  56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1096
  57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1096
  59. http://www.gao.gov/
  60. http://www.gao.gov/
  61. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  62. mailto:[email protected]
  63. mailto:[email protected]
  64. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***